Philosophy of Language by Wittgenstein - Article Example

MANAGING due: ‘The meaning of a word is its use in the language’ written by Wittgenstein and‘I have only one language, and it is not mine’ stated by Derrida are the theme of this essay. The paper will find is the positions expressed are reconcilable or irreconcilable. In addition, the essay will address why the business management students might be concerned with the philosophy of language. Moreover, the paper will look at how the two philosophies of language have practical use in improving the manager’s understanding of both complexity and unintended consequences of managerial work. These two quotations put me in a position where I am left wondering ‘is Wittgenstein and Derrida philosophy of language necessary in business management?’ Philosophy of language by Wittgenstein As written by Brenner (1999), ‘The meaning of a word is its use in the language’ is a philosophy developed by Wittgenstein (p.19). Wittgenstein uses this quote to imply that when an individual focus on the utilization of the word, there can be different meanings. To understand the sense of the word, one has to concentrate on the utilization of the word in the language. He argues that that the expression meaning of a word does not always refer to the use of the word. He confirms that there is a subsidiary sense of the phrase where it is employed to indicate a prompt reaction or experience. Therefore the sense in which the meaning of a word is, presume a feeling in which it is and not its use in the language. Wittgenstein through this philosophy explains that a language is not utilized according to a particular law. The people using the language may apply various descriptions without creating any problem. As argued by Wittgenstein, the occupation of people utilizing the language can be related to the act of playing the game. The game is rule-governed and as such they follow explicit rules at every step (Racine & Slaney 2013:55). Wittgenstein, in connection to this, he says that it is practical to provide a law for every move that is agreeable. Furthermore, in some cases we must report the use of language as a game that changes continuously. Therefore, from this perspective language is in the form of a match, that of acting in accordance with a program of rules. From this point of view, we can outline utilization of expression of linguistics by declaring the laws for their use and without asserting that they are utilized in a particular manner. In addition without demanding that the users of language are playing a specific game as stated by the rules. Hence, the laws are utilized to catch models of interest in real utilisations or factors with the aim of clarification. For example, rules or grammatical rules comprised of such systems or laws are a tool or method for reporting the role of linguistic assertion. By comparing the use of language with them, particular factors of real language use can be declared, underlined and captured. It is attained without declaring the chances of minimising the real dynamic and complex language use to simpler and static thing, for instance, use as stated by particular grammatical laws (Racine & Slaney 2013:56). Philosophy of language by Derrida As stated by Derrida (1998), ‘I only have one language; yet it is not mine’ (p.1). Derrida looks into the function of language to determine the status of an individual in the country. He describes the use of language to unite people and give identity. The quote considers two arguments about language; that we only speak one idiom that is one language. Moreover, the people never speak only one language that is; there is no pure idiom (Kurbalija & Slavik 2001:259). The philosopher made this quotation in regard to his encounter with the French language and citizenship. He describes the effect of language on people’s capability to interact. The quotation ‘I only have one language, yet it is not mine’ displays the contradiction in the statement and the actuality of the language universally. He implies that we speak so that we may have one language, and the one language makes people feel identified with a place but there is no entitled authority over the word meaning people do not own it. Derrida describes how self-identity of individuals is dependent on the language and discussion of another. He however argues that the language is contradicting and without it language would not exist. He, therefore, states that people must encounter the contradiction (Wei 2010:28). The quote brings forth various ideas and arguments that are essential in regard to the association of identity and language in applied linguistics. Firstly, the subjectivity includes a connection to the other and its language. Secondly, subjectivity requires desire in correlation to the other and its language. Lastly, the subject rewriting the language of the other is referred to as deconstruction. The philosopher views identity as ‘disordered’. In his opinion recognition relies on recognition on the other and on the basis on which an individual is identified. The procedure of people being recognised by the other shaped the language attitudes and behaviour and identity of the philosopher. The identification was achieved by ‘recognition as like’ that resulted to linguistic and cultural absorption inclusion and estranged from local languages and cultures (Wei 2010:31). In contrast to the expectation, it was ‘recognition as unlike’ where individuals were excluded, rejected and resulted in a more explicit form of isolation. It is evident from the sentence about the ‘disorder of identity’ which is Derrida’s theme of the text. In reference to the two quotations, they are reconcilable. It is a fact that the two can exist together because language is defined by the two concepts of the society. From Derrida’s perspective individual adopt a foreign language so as to communicate effectively. On the other hand, as stated by Wittgenstein the way the language is utilized brings out its meaning. The business and management students need to understand Wittgenstein and Derrida philosophy of language because it is important to organization management. In management deconstruction of a text, will not apply to written documents only but also to groups of history, politics, strategic management, and ethics. This applies to an organization strategic assembly where the participants use gestures such as rolling eyes on the remarks of colleagues. It implies that they use a sign as the signal that is treated as text (Rasche 2008143). From this perspective, the text is comprehended as expounded encounter. Discourse theory in management as motivated by Wittgenstein Philosophy In reference to the concept, there is no structuralist expectation that there is a particular language method of suitably organized langue that people can utilize and not make different. In regard to this, the language procedure splits from a more unsystematic utilization of signs in language application. As argued by Wittgenstein, the definition of language is associated with social implementation (Kaarbøe, Gooderham & Nørreklit 2013:116). It is evident that human operations are arranged according to the utilization of language games that is the understanding of the language and the action it is structured. In other words, language thoughts, actions, and use are associated (Daintith & Wright 2006:11). Language is described as a toolbox consisting of various forms of sentences and kinds of words that have distinct roles. For instance, language is used in joking, storytelling, describing and reporting (Kaarbøe, Gooderham & Nørreklit 2013:116).Word arrangement in a sentence is not reliant to a certain external rule application, but in the game of the language in a social context where the language is applied and learned. The kind of language implanted in a game of language serves as the operator of the actions and thoughts that is attached together with some sort of life. To compose a particular language game, it involves the use of particular forms of grammar, arguments, semantics and compositions that is found and developed in an individual structure of life. Wittgenstein proposes that people have the potential to produce new forms of language games that initiate new structures of life. The people make a choice inside the language game and therefore affect and expand the kinds of life structures inside a social application. Nevertheless, the social surroundings limit the space for language choice. The use of language in business and management is demonstrated by the structure of budgeting. The structure of budgeting revolves around the budgeting process in relation to budget control and production. The budget is founded on tools of annual and monthly department budgeting that is in accordance with the accounting calculative reasoning. The process of budgeting involves people from the top management, employees, and budget division. Before the budget is consented to by the top management, the data is processed step by step in one direction (Ofallon & Rutherford 2011:401). Rooted in the procedure of step by step is a speculation of progress geared to optimal budget. The information forwarded from one level is the occurrence that produces that activity towards the exact budget, the inspiration to possess a particular action. The procedure of step by step, repetitive, one directional combined with calculative operations creates a cause-event design of the event. It indicates that people use productive and systematic laws of an automatic language game. In management, the budgeting process is an essential component because it generates a budget that shows the profitability of the organization. The budget is used as the sign of the company’s success or failure. Corporate Management as motivated by Derrida philosophy The theory applies to the management pyramid framework. In the modern world, the organizations are arranged in accordance with the management method founded on a networking representation. The systems are created to give horizontal, lateral, overlapping and multi-directional associations (Edmundson 1996:1820). The management pyramid illustrates how a manager operates on a standard with the other managers with one controlling supervisor who is out-dated. The pyramid does not consider the various roles and relations that the new manager must endure. The pyramid displays the manager as dependent on the consent of his superior in authority and does not possess sufficient freedom to act independently, quickly and at his preference (Edmundson 1996:182). In modern organization, the manager must be a competent individual, ready to handle various functions that provide to a range of projects, available and adjustable to work (Edmundson 1996:183). The manager in a traditional pyramid focused on simple hierarchy and performed a simple job and had a single principal. Whereas, the manager in modern pyramid the pyramid consists of various interconnecting assignments where there are many colleagues working together. According to Edmundson (1996), for a manager to survive in modern corporate habitat, he/she must be different from the traditional successful manager (p.183). The author proposes that a manager should be exposed to Derrida’s technique of reading to develop a character that fulfils today’s corporate demands. Derrida’s technique is a kind of networking that spotlights the advancing design of alliances, linkages, alliances without an ultimate objective and the likelihood of ending. For all the roles carried out in corporate networking, there are new resources to be utilized. The escalating growth in information technology and global market require continuation of investment in a revolutionary speed. Derrida’s reading gives a method of correct teaching in independent and ceaseless progress (Edmundson 1996:183). Derrida’s philosophy can also be applied by a manager in an organization to manage employees and avoid conflict in the working environment. The theory has been implemented to tradition business ethics in the aspects of similar pressures of society, difference and democracy (Van Der Ven & Bevan 2011:4). The culture is demonstrated by the attempt to build an organization as a community of friends that is difficult (Rendtorff 2014:186). It is marked by a game between enemies through the introduction of competition and opportunism. The challenge of Darrida’s philosophy is to develop an idea of business ethics that can incorporate opportunism, conflict and difference at the centre of the concept of a real collaboration between employees. Derrida believed that any conceptual resistance is a problem because one part of the opposition is viewed as superior and original, and the other is subordinate. The oppositions include rules; decisions, processes, organization and environment are regarded to as problems because they cannot survive on their own. For a manager, it is crucial to know the difference between words such as society and environment. Deconstruction in organization is applied to four areas; (a) Deconstruction as a method of learning happening in an institution, (b) Deconstruction as an ontological and epistemological structure of reference, (c) Deconstruction as a plan for an investigation of ‘classical texts’ in a theory for organization and (d) Deconstruction as a technique of elaborating the conceptual opposition in the academic discussion on institutions. The four elements are connected and are differentiated for analytical reasons (Tsoukas & Chia 2011:254). Deconstruction of classical texts It is utilized in oppositions in a particular print to indicate that the left out idea within a text constitutes the considered one. An example is in reviewing the machine/non-machine structure of the employee that demonstrates that the machine model can catch rationality. In reading the text in a deconstructive way, the people’s mind is structured to carry out duties (Tsoukas & Chia 2011:258). Deconstruction of oppositions in organization concept It is implemented to reveal the conceptual oppositions that the academic discussion on organizational theory has generated with time. Deconstruction has assisted in exposing oppositions such as structure/agency, decision/action, organization/disorganization and resources/application (Tsoukas & Chia 2011:259). It illustrates that the decisions are organization is superior to disorganization decisions are superior to action. Therefore, the group assessment when looks at from the perspective of deconstruction, practice condemns the reality of pure roots, hence, removes ideological obscuration layers. Deconstruction as a method of studying language in an organization It is used to examine the language happening in the institution. An excellent example is the silence experienced when a manager tells a narrative of how the institution is trying to help women balance home and work demands. The organization’s endeavors to assist the women continued the incorrect opposition with regard to private and public domain of life and result in repression of gender conflict. Mainly, the work is seen as different from family life, and, therefore, the working mothers’ conflict is categorized as a private problem. The private problem cannot be affected by the organization (Tsoukas & Chia 2011:260). Deconstruction as an ontological and epistemological setting The managers utilizing this concept attempt to initiate a point of view of deconstructive for performing organizational investigations and the arguments used are not founded on particular oppositions. An example is where deconstruction is used to get a distinct comprehension of the beliefs supporting organization study (Wallis 2010:46). Derrida’s philosophy helps a manager to plan for what is bound to happen in the institution. It also helps the manager to make an informed decision in reference to the activities occurring and while managing the employees efficiently. The organization’s environment then becomes conducive to enhanced productivity. Conclusion To sum this up, Wittgenstein and Derrida philosophy of language is important in business management because language is the core of communication in every organization. The manager should be aware that people identify through the language they speak. It is critical for the organization management to lead the company in the direction that no employee is discriminated on the basis of his/her language. As stated by Derrida ‘I have only one language, and it is not mine’ reveals the ability of individuals to adopt any other language that is considered suitable by the authority. Therefore, this puts more emphasis on the fact that no one is capable of owning a language, but anyone is in a position of identifying with it regardless of his or her social and cultural background. As stated by Wittgenstein ‘The meaning of a word is its use in the language’ implies that the managers should come up with a manner of using words in a way that the employees will understand. The way that information is reported in an organization should be made clear to avoid conflict. In most cases in institutions, the formal style of communication is associated with formal authority. For example, if a manager addressing the employees says ‘is this the best you can do?’ indicates an attitude of high expectations. The expression is followed by a directive from the manager of what is expected in the next report. In conclusion, as a matter of fact, people understand each other’s feelings and views through language. Therefore, the two philosophies of language are paramount for collaboration and unity in a business organization. Bibliography BRENNER, W. H. (1999). Wittgensteins philosophical investigations. Albany, NY, State University of New York Press. DAINTITH, J., & WRIGHT, E. (2006). The Facts on File dictionary of computer science. New York, Facts on File. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=229561. DERRIDA, J. (1998). The monolingualism of the other: the prosthesis of origin. Stanford, Calif, Stanford University Press. EDMUNDSON, M. (1996). Literature against philosophy, Plato to Derrida: a defence of poetry. Cambridge [etc.], University Press. HATCH, M. J. (2012). Organization theory: modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford university press. KURBALIJA, J., & SLAVIK, H. (2001). Language and diplomacy. Msida, DiploProjects. KAARBØE, K., GOODERHAM, P. N., & NØRREKLIT, H. (2013). Managing in dynamic business environments between control and autonomy. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1507537. OFALLON, M. J., & RUTHERFORD, D. G. (Eds.). (2011). Hotel management and operations. John Wiley & Sons. RACINE, T. P., & SLANEY, K. L. (2013). A Wittgensteinian Perspective on the Use of Conceptual Analysis in Psychology. New York, Palgrave Macmillan. RASCHE, A. (2008). The paradoxical foundation of strategic management. Heidelberg, Physica-Verl. RENDTORFF, J. D. (2014). French philosophy and social theory: a perspective for ethics and Philosophy of management. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=785502. TSOUKAS, H., & CHIA, R. C. H. (2011). Philosophy and organization theory. Bingley, U.K., Emerald. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=662385. VAN DER VEN, N., & BEVAN, D. (2011). The shame of reason in organizational change a Levinassian perspective. Dordrecht, Springer Verlag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9373-8. WEI, L. (2010). Applied Linguistics Review 2010. Berlin, Walter de Gruyter. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=548124. WALLIS, S. (2010). Cybernetics and systems theory in management: tools, views, and advancements. Hershey, PA, Information Science Reference. Read More